Ahammed Suhaib vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8347 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
                  CRL.MC NO. 3520 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1661/2015 OF JUDICIAL
              MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,TIRUR
 CRIME NO. 1297/2015 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos. 1 TO 3:

    1     AHAMMED SUHAIB
          AGED 36 YEARS
          S/O.MAMMIKUTTY @ BAPPUTTY HAJI
          MADHUKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKANAD,
          MUTTANNUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
          676561
    2     AYISHABHEEVI
          AGED 55 YEARS
          W/O.MAMMIKUTTY @ BAPPUTTY HAJI
          MADHUKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKANAD,
          MUTTANNUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
          676561
    3     ASHIFA
          AGED 33 YEARS
          D/O MAMMIKUTTY @ BAPPUTTY HAJI
          MADHUKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKANAD,
          MUTTANNUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
          676561
          BY ADV M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR


RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
          HIGHCOURT OF KERALA
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
 Crl.M.C.No.3520 of 2022


                                     ..2..


     2          THAHSIN
                AGED 30 YEARS
                D/O UMMER FAROOK
                JASMIN COTTAGE, THALAKKAD
                PARASSERI, B.P ANGADI POST,
                MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676102
                BY ADV DIVYA T.P.

                SRI SANGEETHA RAJ-PP


         THIS     CRIMINAL   MISC.      CASE   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.3520 of 2022


                                   ..3..




                                 ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure B

Final Report in C.C. No. 1661/2015 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate's Court, Tirur on the ground of settlement between

the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The

respondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are

punishable under Sections 406 and 498A r/w 34 of the IPC.

4. The respondent No. 2 entered appearance through

counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri. Priyesh Kumar, the learned counsel for

the petitioners, Smt. Divya T.P, the learned counsel for the

respondent No. 2 and Sri. Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public

Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit Crl.M.C.No.3520 of 2022

..4..

sworn in by the respondent No. 2 would show that the entire dispute

between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto

complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal

proceedings further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits

that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer

and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded

wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

7. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012

(4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab

and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v.

Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the

High Court by invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal

proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the

parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding

the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and

circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to

prevent abuse of process of any Court. Crl.M.C.No.3520 of 2022

..5..

8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by

quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure B. The offences in

question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for

compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in

Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan

(supra).

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose

will be served in proceeding with the matter any further.

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure B Final Report in

C.C. No. 1661/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate's Court, Tirur hereby stands quashed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE RMV/01/07/2022 Crl.M.C.No.3520 of 2022

..6..

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3520/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1297/2015 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.1661/2015 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TIRUR ARISING FROM CRIME NO.1297/2015 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION.

Annexure C        AFFIDAVIT